View Single Post
Old 4th December 2007, 11:58 PM   #9
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Yeah, the "We" thing is pretty funny.

Particularly coming from a "journal." One would think they'd never, ever read a real journal article before.

The "We" is not royal, nor is it haughty, it's accepted style in formal technical writing. "We" refers to two people, the author and the reader. It's a compromise between personalizing the paper ("I show this and that" -- the paper's not about the author, it's about the science) and the dreaded passive voice ("It is shown that Mr. Ryan is totally wrong"). Entirely SOP.

What a clown!
clearly 'we' refers to you as well as the 'higher ups' who commanded you mix that heinous batch of kool aide for the sheeple.

BTW, he can't be serious with page 5 can he?

Quote:
But it is
possible that Mr. Mackey has not yet fully explained how those multidirectional,
perfectly symmetrical ricochets could have so efficiently
removed all the fireproofing from five floors of the towers (thatís what NIST
means by widely-dislodged) without the need for any energy.
I think the removal of fireproofing is the weakest part of the NIST theory because of the uncertainty associated with assessing the condition of fireproofing in the tower, but I am quite sure they did not claim that all of the fireproofing was stripped over five floors.
cmcaulif is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top